In a significant judgment delivered on November 27, 2024, the Patna High Court emphasized that the absence of a specific threat perception cannot be the sole basis for rejecting an arms license application. The case, Ranjan Kumar Mandal v. The State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 4117 of 2020), was presided over by Justice Mohit Kumar Shah.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Ranjan Kumar Mandal, a retired military officer residing in Khagaria, Bihar, sought an arms license citing his livelihood as a petrol pump owner. Mandal filed his application in 2013, which was supported by favorable reports from local police authorities. However, the District Magistrate, Khagaria, rejected the application in 2018, stating that Mandal lacked any significant threat perception. An appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Munger, was similarly dismissed in 2019, reiterating the absence of any threat to his life.
Mandal subsequently approached the Patna High Court, challenging the validity of these rejections.
Legal Issues
The case brought forth critical issues concerning the interpretation and application of the Arms Rules, 2016, particularly Rule 12, which governs the assessment criteria for granting arms licenses. The core questions addressed were:
1. Whether an applicant must prove an imminent threat to justify the grant of an arms license.
2. The extent of discretion available to licensing authorities under the Arms Act and Rules, 2016.
Court’s Observations
Justice Shah observed that denying an arms license solely due to the absence of a threat perception contradicts the Arms Rules, 2016. Referring to previous judgments, including Deepak Kumar v. State of Bihar (2019 SCC OnLine Pat 3759), the court highlighted that Rule 12(3)(a) allows authorities to consider the nature of an applicant’s profession or trade in deciding such cases.
Key excerpts from the judgment include:
– “It is not necessary that a person should have an actual threat or imminent threat perception. It would suffice if the applicant persuades the authority to consider the nature of their trade or profession.”
– “The licensing authority must conduct a holistic assessment, including police reports and professional circumstances, before arriving at a decision.”
Decision
The court quashed both the orders of the District Magistrate, Khagaria (dated March 15, 2018) and the Divisional Commissioner, Munger (dated November 15, 2019). It directed the District Magistrate to reassess Mandal’s application within 12 weeks and consider it under the guidelines provided by the Arms Rules, 2016.
Representation
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Advocate Ranjeet Kumar Singh argued that the rejection was arbitrary and unsupported by law, referencing precedents where similar applications were approved in the absence of explicit threat perceptions.
– Respondents’ Counsel: Saroj Kumar Sharma, representing the State, defended the decision, asserting that threat perception was a legitimate criterion.
